社會所得分配不均促使人們重視自身所得的相對位置，此種社會比較所產生的相對剝奪感，不僅影響個人的生活滿意度，也可能改變其行為決策。本研究旨在探討由所得分配不均所引發的個人相對剝奪感，對於炫耀性消費、金融投資參與以及生活滿意度的影響。本文也關注個體為了提升身份所進行的炫耀性消費是否有過度之虞，從而抑制基本生活消費。

首先，設立跨期消費決策的理論模型，結合個體的相對剝奪感、消費型態的選擇以及金融投資決策。假設扣除相對滿足感後的淨相對剝奪感降低快樂，且提高炫耀性消費的邊際效用，則從最適選擇的比較靜態分析得知，無論是參考群體的平均所得、最高或最低所得等變動，皆會透過個體的淨相對剝奪感受，影響其炫耀性消費與金融投資決策。由是，個人所得變動對炫耀性消費，不僅帶來所得效果，也連帶產生相對剝奪的效果，而二者的作用相反，其淨影響視二種效果的大小而定。在未考量風險態度改變的情況下，金融性投資在炫耀性消費的排擠下，與淨相對剝奪呈反向變動。因此，個人所得變動，受到所得效果與相對剝奪效果同向作用的影響，金融投資隨所得同向變動。

接著，分別建立炫耀性消費、基本生活消費、金融投資參與以及生活滿意度等四個實證模型，去檢驗四個命題。實證研究資料來源為「台灣社會變遷基本調查計畫2007年第五期第三次-階層組」。對於淨相對剝奪感這個關鍵變數，本文係採用Yitzhaki (1979) 的客觀衡量方式，依據個人與全體樣本的所得加以估算。重要結論如下：個人在所得分配不均的社會下進行所得相互比較，因而引發的淨相對剝奪感確實使炫耀性消費支出增加，基本生活消費減少；二者的影響皆具有統計的顯著性。另方面，淨相對剝奪感提高個人參與金融投資的意願，惟其影響不具統計顯著性。最後，個體的生活滿意度受到相對剝奪感的影響而下降。

The income inequality in society propels people to scrutinize their own income relative to others. Such social comparison causes relative deprivation that not only influences individuals’ life satisfaction but also alters behavioral decision-making. This research aims to explore how individual relative deprivation brought about by attitudes to income inequality affects conspicuous consumption, involvement in financial investment, and life satisfaction. This paper also considers whether the conspicuous consumption that individuals undertake in social climbing causes excessive worry, consequently restraining their basic personal spending.

First, this research builds a theoretical model of intertemporal consumption choice, combining an individual’s relative deprivation, choices of consumption patterns, and decision-making of financial investment. Assume that net relative deprivation which corresponds to relative deprivation minus relative satisfaction decreases the level of happiness and increases the marginal utility of conspicuous consumption, then through comparative statics of optimal choices, it is revealed that changes in the average, highest, and lowest income of the reference group do affect conspicuous consumption and financial investment decision-making through individual net relative deprivation. As a result, changes in personal income produce the income effect as well as the relative deprivation effect on conspicuous consumption, and the two effects are opposite. Without taking into account the changes in risk attitude, financial investment—crowded out by conspicuous consumption—is negatively related to net relative deprivation. Therefore, changes in personal income producing the income effect and the relative deprivation effect in the same direction cause financial investment to change in the same direction as income.

Second, this research builds four empirical models of conspicuous consumption, basic personal spending, involvement in financial investment, and life satisfaction, respectively, to test four propositions. It uses data from the Taiwan Social Change Survey 2007, Round 5, Year 3: Social Stratification. In terms of the key variable net relative deprivation, this paper adopts an objective measurement introduced by Yitzhaki (1979) and estimates on the basis of micro and macro income samples. The main conclusions are as follows: Individuals compare with each other in a society with income inequality; hence, the net relative deprivation produced by such comparison increases conspicuous consumption and decreases basic personal spending, while both influences are statistically significant. The influence of net relative deprivation on individual’s involvement in financial investment is positive, yet it is not statistically significant. Lastly, individuals’ life satisfaction drops due to the influence of relative deprivation.

目錄
目錄	I
表目錄	II
圖目錄	III
第一章	緒論 1
第一節	研究動機與目的 1
第二節	研究方法與架構 7
第二章	文獻回顧	8
第一節	相對剝奪	8
第二節	商品的消費意義：象徵意義 12
第三節	不均度的態度與消費行為 14
第四節	不均度的態度與風險態度 17
第三章	理論模型	20
第一節	消費理論架構 20
第二節	比較靜態分析 24
第四章	實證模型、實證資料來源與變數分析 29
第一節	資料來源與說明 29
第二節	實證模型	30
第三節	變數設定	33
第四節	敘述分析	43
第五章	實證結果	47
第一節	炫耀性消費的迴歸分析 47
第二節	金融投資參與的迴歸分析 50
第三節	最低生活開銷的迴歸分析 53
第四節	生活滿意程度的迴歸分析 54
第六章	結論 56
參考文獻	59

表目錄
表4-1 變數名稱與設定 40
表4-1 變數名稱與設定 (續一) 41
表4-1 變數名稱與設定 (續二) 42
表4-2 被解釋變數的敘述統計 44
表4-3 解釋變數的敘述統計 45
表4-3 解釋變數的敘述統計 (續一) 46
表5-1 炫耀性商品消費支出的迴歸分析	49
表5-2-1 金融投資參與的迴歸分析：淨相對剝奪感為正值者	 51
表5-2-2 金融投資參與的迴歸分析：淨相對剝奪感為負值者 52
表5-3 最低生活開銷的迴歸分析 53
表5-4 生活滿意程度的迴歸分析 55

圖目錄
圖1-1 1991年至2016年「戶數五等分位組之所得差距倍數」與「吉尼係數」 趨勢 2
圖1-2 1991年至2016年戶數五等分位組之平均每戶消費支出占所得比之趨勢 3
圖1-3 1991年至2016年最低20%所得組平均每戶消費支出與儲蓄占所得比 4
圖1-4 1991年至2016年上市股票總交易股數與吉尼係數趨勢 5

參考文獻
中文文獻
張苙雲與廖培珊 (2008)，「台灣社會變遷基本調查計畫第五期第三次調查計畫執行報告」，中央研究院社會學研究所。
張苙雲 (2014)，「台灣社會變遷基本調查計畫2007第五期第三次：階層組」，限制版 (R090038)，【原始數據】取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫，doi:10.6141/TW-SRDA-R090038-1。
戴肇洋 (2011)，「釐清所得分配不均惡化形成原因」，台灣綜合研究院。

英文文獻
Amiel, Y., & Cowell, F.A., (2000), “ Attitudes to risk and inequality: A new twist on the transfer principle.” Distributional Analysis Discussion Paper 56, STICERD, London: London School of Economics.
Callan, M.J., Ellard, J.H., Shead, N.W., & Hodgins, D.C., (2008), “ Gambling as a search for justice: Examining the role of personal relative deprivation in gambling urges and gambling behavior.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1514–1529. 
Callan, M.J., Kim, H., Gheorghiu, A.I., & Matthews, W.J., (2017), “ The interrelations between social class, personal relative deprivation, and prosociality.” Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(6), 660-669.
Cowell, F.A., & Schokkaert, E., (2001),“ Risk perceptions and distributional judgments.” European Economic Review, 45, 941-952.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rochberg, H.E., (1981), The meaning of thing: Domestic symbols and the self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dittmar, H., (1992), The social psychology of material possessions : to have is to be. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Dupor, B., & Liu, W.F., (2003), “ Jealousy and equilibrium overconsumption.” American Economic Association, 93(1), 423-428.
Duesenberry, J.S., (1949), Income, saving, and the theory of consumer behavior. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K., (1999), “ A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817-868.
Friedman, D., (2005), “ Conspicuous consumption dynamics.” Working Paper.
Heckman, J.J., (1979), “ Sample selection bias as a specification error.” The Econometric Society, 47, 153-161.
Hey, J.D., & Lambert, P.J., (1980), “Relative deprivation and the Gini coefficient: Comment.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 95(3), 567-573.
Hopkins, E., (2008), “ Inequality, happiness and relative concerns: What actually is their relationship? ” The Journal of Economic Inequality, 6, 351-372.
Keynes, J.M., (1936), The general theory of employment, interest, and money. London: Macmillan.
Kornienko, T., (2004), “ A cognitive basis for cardinal utility.” Working Paper.
Luttmer, E.F.P., (2005), “ Neighbors as negatives: relative earnings and well-being.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120 (3), 963-1002. 
Mason, R.S., (1981), Conspicuous consumption: A study of exceptional consumer behaviour.Farnborough: Gower.
Parducci, A., (1965), “ Category judgment: A range-frequency model.” Psychological Review, 72, 407-18.
Ravallion, M., & Lokshin, M., (2000), “ Who wants to redistribute? The tunnel effect in 1990s Russia.” Journal of Public Economics, 76, 87-104.
Rayo, L., Becker & Gary, S., (2007), “ Evolutionary efficiency and happiness.” Journal of Political Economy, 115 (2), 302-337.
Rosenbaum, E.F., (1999), “ Against naïve materialism: Culture, consumption and the causes of inequality.” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23, 317-336.
Runciman, W.G. (1966), Relative deprivation and social justice: A study of attitudes to social inequality in twentieth-century England. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Samuelson, L., (2004), “ Information-based  relative  consumption  effects.”                             Econometrica, 72, 93-118.
Schokkaert, E., Verhue, M., & Omey, E., (1997), “ Individual preferences concerning unemployment compensation: Insurance and solidarity.” Working Paper, University Gent.
Stewart, N., Chater, N., & Brown, G. D. A., (2006), “ Decision by sampling.” Cognitive Psychology, 53, 1-26.
Stouffer, S. A., (1949), The American soldier: Combat and its aftermath. (Studies in social psychology in World War II). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Veblen, T., (1925), The theory of the leisure class: An economic study of institutions. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Yitzhaki, S., (1979), “ Relative deprivation and the Gini coefficient.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 93(2), 321-324.